September 13, 2018

I've come to the conclusion that a big part of being a spiritual person is thinking clearly.

(When I say "spiritual," I don't mean religious or supernatural; I mean finding meaning in life, the underlying spirit of one's life, so to speak.)

If we don't think clearly, there's a danger that our emotions, feelings, desires, intuitions, and such will lead us astray. I'm certainly not saying that thoughts are more important than other aspects of our psyche -- just that we need to find a balance between the rational and non-rational parts of ourselves.

Case in point: this You Tube video is a 24-minute example of how a deist caller to the Atheist Experience TV show is utterly unable to discuss in any sort of coherent fashion why he believes God, or any other supernatural entity, exists.

I watched the whole video, but in the first 5-10 minutes you can get a good feel for the discussion between the atheist guys and Jeff from Aptos, California.

The person who emailed me a link to the video yesterday said:

Hi Brian, I just listened to this call on the call-in program called The Atheist Experience. What is so unbelievably fascinating about this call is that the caller has absolutely no clue about what's being said.

I would go further and say he is unable to comprehend or make sense of what the hosts of the show are saying so clearly. It is like they are speaking a foreign language.

The caller is so fixated on his own viewpoint that it is impossible to have a normal conversation with him. It is the same with many of the people who comment on your blog.

I agree that many Church of the Churchless commenters display the same lack of understanding of what it means to believe in the supernatural, and not to believe in the supernatural.

Over and over, the caller, Jeff, is asked to explain why he is a deist, a believer in God. He's repeatedly asked to provide reasons, or evidence, to support his belief in God. But all of his explanations are either circular, or unresponsive.

Of course, there's no demonstrable evidence of God, or I and almost every other atheist in the world would believe in God. After all, us atheists typically are open-minded, as Don and Matt, the Atheist Experience guys, are.

As noted regularly on this blog, most recently in this post, atheism isn't a belief; it is the absence of a belief in theism, in God. Don and Matt keep pointing out that they aren't saying there is no God. Rather, they consider that because of insufficient evidence that God exists, they assume that not-believing in God is the wisest choice.

I liked how they interrupted the caller when he tried to answer their question about why he is a deist by starting out with, "But you..." They correctly said that when someone begins to answer a question about themselves with "But you...", it's clear that they aren't intent on providing an answer.

Asking an atheist to prove that there is no God is an example of how religious believers fail to think clearly. The burden of proof is on a believer, not a skeptic.

In a trial, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime. Fairly frequently, the defense won't call a single witness. Why? Because they don't have to prove that the defendant didn't commit a crime.

Likewise, an atheist doesn't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Atheists like me, and like Don and Matt, leave open the possibility that God or some other supernatural entity might exist. If there is sufficient evidence of this, we would believe. Because there isn't, we don't.

Of course, there are good reasons to believe in God, even if God doesn't exist. Here's some of them:

(1) It feels good to believe that death isn't the end of us, but the beginning of an afterlife.(2) It feels good to be part of a religious community, given the social support that comes with this.(3) It feels good to be provided a moral code, rather than having to decide what is right and wrong on our own.(4) It feels good to consider that we're part of a "chosen people," instead of just being an ordinary person.(5) It feels good to believe that a divine power is guiding your life.

Here's the thing though: just because something makes us feel good doesn't mean it is true. Fantasies can be fun.

I regularly get comments on this blog along the lines of, "Brian, why are you trying to take away an important source of support for people, their belief in God?" My answer: "I'm not trying to do this. What I'm trying to do is learn the truth about God and supernaturalism in general."

For me, the arguments in favor of believing in God or the supernatural are weak, too weak for me to accept. Yes, I used to believe in not only God, but in the existence of living masters, or gurus, who essentially were God in human form. Now I don't believe in either.

However, since I used to believe, I understand the appeal of believing. Life is hard. The Buddha got it right when he taught that life is suffering. We all need shoulders to lean on. I get why most people in the world believe in God and the supernatural. This feels good.

There's nothing wrong, and a lot right, with feeling good. I'm simply saying that feeling good because of a belief in God is one thing, and that belief being true is a very different thing.

Science was mentioned in the Atheist Experience video as being our best way of determining what is true. For sure. Here's a 4-minute video in praise of science that's well worth watching.

"Thomas Aquinas makes an important distinction about proving God’s existence through reason: we can know naturally that God exists, that there is an infinite and perfect Being who created the universe, but we cannot know who God is by reason alone. The universe may bear the footprint of its Creator, but God is not a being or object within the universe, but BEING itself — he IS the One who IS. Nonetheless, knowing that God exists does help the mind a great deal, recognizing its natural dependence on the Creator."

Quoting the Denver Catholic.

In other words when we experience the great perfection, the ground of all being, and so forth, we are experiencing God without. But if we start thinking about our experience of being, or creating mythology around it, the Beingness itself disappears into the background of our perception.

"It feels good to believe that death isn't the end of us, but the beginning of an afterlife".

Nobody can prove (or disprove) that one. Subscribing to such logic (and a belief in God) could be something as simple as working on a hypothesis and building it from the ground up into a strong support structure for when push comes to shove. You can't lean on to a concept you have consciously rubbished and denigrated while you were apparently "winning" in the game of life. IMHO people don't really give such existential issues much thought when they choose these comforting thoughts. They could simply be ideations that make living "easy" and give hope for the future.

I am a complete newbie to the spiritual world (and am likely to stay unevolved for a pretty long while). Don't think I believe in the concept of God the way a devotee sees Him. But I do subscribe to the belief in a Karmic afterlife and the concept of accumulated, accumulating and yet to be accumulated Karma as Sankara Vedanta says. I also believe that practising simple living and trying to stick to the "six treasures" and the "four-fold discipline" paves the way for a "fulfilled" life and an evolved after-life . But that's the great think about Vedanta philosophy. You could choose Ramanuja (Bhakti Marga)or Sankara Vedanta (Gyana Marga) and come away with pointers to leading a harmonious existence with your inner self. Although Sankara Vedanta would help one deal with hardships like a stoic, something that a conventional belief in God would'nt.

Choosing a certain stance to religion has more to do with the mental inclinations of the individual concerned. Some are crying to be led, some find gratification in denigrating traditionalist concepts while the rest stay ambivalent. Non-theism, in my opinion is the better way, but that's probably because I belong to the last category while in the decision making mode.

"Science was mentioned in the Atheist Experience video as being our best way of determining what is true. For sure."

Again, that is only one truth, or, only a partial truth. There are many things science can not prove or disprove. In fact, the history of science itself proves that it cannot determine what is true. What it believes is true is quickly usurped by whats it finds to be true next. There are many things that science simply is ill equipped to prove and disprove. And rather than admit to that, people invested in the scientific perspective of the universe end up dogmatically denying the truth, or coming up with an explanation that is convenient for their level of perceiving.

Joe, you mention "levels" in a way that seems to imply that there are magical men, mystics maybe, who know of things others don't know about. I don't buy it. Manjit who comments here is the greatest mystic of all time as well as the most rigorous theologian, and he shows no signs of having obtained any of the promised/guaranteed fruits of these enlightening esoteric experiences that he and so many claim to have had.

For thousands of years, man has been writing down cool sounding poetry and drawing metaphysical maps, and when asked for evidence, they simply state the name of someone who came before them or tell us that absolute truth is real, but it's only real to some special souls who, in the modern era, sign up for an email list or attend certain meetings.

As limited as the scientific method may be, at least it consists of more than "this guy said so" which is the beginning and end of religion and mysticism.

Joe, you seem uninformed about the scientific method. Science is always seeking to know the unknown, so scientific facts are continually changing and expanding. When was the last time a religion admitted that it got something wrong, and adjusted its dogma? Like, never. Or hardly ever.

By contrast, Einstein expanded our knowledge of Newton's laws of motion. After Darwin came up with the theory of evolution, scientists have taken that knowledge to new levels with an understanding of genetics and other factors.

So science can indeed determine what is true. And then science produces increased knowledge of truth. I'm curious, what do you consider to be superior to science when it comes to revealing truth? This was a question asked by the atheist guys. The deist couldn't come up with an answer. I bet you can't either.

And if you hazard a guess, and share it in a comment, you'll be using a computer and the Internet that was developed by... take a guess... science!

As limited as the scientific method may be, at least it consists of more than "this guy said so" which is the beginning and end of religion and mysticism.

But Jesse that is the point. It does consist of more than "this guy said so" but the whole thing doesn't end there. Lots of people have broader, more inclusive, non-dual, empty, formless experiences of all kinds that are neither dependent on rational thinking or on heresay.

Brian, there is nothing superior or inferior. You see that is the point. When you are fixed at a particular way of perceiving everything is either inferior or superior or just plain wrong. There are greater truths that science can not explain - that is the point. That doesn't mean science is inferior. It means science is not enough. Just like religion was not enough before that.

The play of consciousness is not limited to what science can explain. It never was and never will be. Just like it was never limited to what religion can explain.

Scientific method has nothing to do with it because there are realities beyond what scientific method can apply itself to.

Joe, what are these realities? That's the first question. What evidence do you have that they exist? That's the second question.

We all have experiences that are unknown to science, at least the current state of science. Dreams. Felt emotions. A sense of awe. Etc. Etc.

But all of these subjective realities are experienced by a physical brain and a physical body. So they also are physical. Or are you saying that there is a supernatural realm that somehow you're able to experience with your physical brain and body?

Talk is cheap. Truth is expensive. You can't expect me or anyone else to believe in what you do without your going beyond talk. That's what religions do -- they are full of words without substance.

I'm not saying this is what your words also are. I'm just saying that everyone has had profound ineffable experiences. I sure have. In fact, I still have them via my atheist brain. But this doesn't mean that I've discovered something profound about the universe. I've just had a profound personal experience.

"It does consist of more than "this guy said so" but the whole thing doesn't end there. Lots of people have broader, more inclusive, non-dual, empty, formless experiences of all kinds that are neither dependent on rational thinking or on heresay."

So you know it's more than what people say, because people said it. Lovely clarification.

As I said about the smartest man alive who posts here, the people claiming that these things exist also almost unanimously discuss the requisite moral and ethical upgrades that coincide with mystic experience, which we can see simply are not manifest. People are not transformed by seeing cool lights in their head and thinking for a few minutes that they've become the whole universe.

I'm using their criteria, and it has yet to convince me. Have you become one with the universe, and if so, what is it like? If not, why are you talking about it?

If Jesse, or some of the people on this blog were present they might have asked,
"Mauj, what fucking mauj? You didn't mention any mauj when you said you were leaving!"

But they were devout disciples and devout disciples never doubt, or if they do, never express it.

So even Swami's own exact prediction went wrong.

How come?

Did he not KNOW that the mauj was going to change?

If he didn't, then he is not "all knowing"

If he did know, then why go through the whole thing of pretending, since he knows the truth.

So ONE of those are true:

(1) He didn't know that Sat purush would change the time and when he arrives at the big door of Sach Khand, instead of welcoming him with open arms, He just has a sevadar standing there (I am assuming he is good at deligating non significant tasks like this) who tells swami "Sorry for the inconvenience, pal, but the time has changed. Come back tomorrow at 6pm. Not my fault, it was Sat purush, his Mauj changed."

or

(2) Swami Ji, being all knowing, KNEW it was a setup, but then he still played along. So he is then a LIAR and just pretending to go, knowing full well the door is closed.

The believer just believes and does not face the consequences of his beliefs.

If the main guru of sant mat got it wrong, how can his disciples, two decades later, know the exact time of their death and know for sure that the "mauj" will not change.

Since you've never experienced anything outside of consciousness, you cannot prove there is anything outside consciousness... which simply shows this is a philosophical question and not a scientific question and the whole "proof" red herring is meaningless.

Since no one has ever, or can ever, experience anything outside of consciousness it stands to reason there is nothing outside of consciousness. It logically and philosophically has to be the first, last and only reality and possibility. There is no other possibility.

If you say no-consciousness is a possibility you've defied logic, reason and experience.

As soon as someone successfully gets out of consciousness and reports back about the zero consciousness world they non-experienced, we can take their report seriously.

Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the latest in science. According to quantum theory, when you close your eyes the visible world does actually literally disappear (and goes back to potential) and re-manifests again when you open them.

Sounds a lot like the idea that subjectivity is primal which is what mystics have been saying all along.

According to Occam's Razor you go with the simplest explanation that fits all of the known facts.

Known fact: We exist.
Simple explanation: Existence always is.

Convoluted explanation: Material objects came first, existence evolved out of material objects by some process no one knows and which stopped and was never again observed happening. We can't explain how we got out of nonexistence but consider it likely we will go into it at death.

287daysleft, you are ignorant of quantum theory. The world doesn't go out of existence when you close your eyes. That's crazy nonsense. Also, I'm glad that you've become an atheist, since you said you believe that existence has always existed. I agree. That's why there's no need to believe in a God, since there was no need for a God to bring the cosmos into existence.

Blog Boss Brian wrote: "...existence has always existed. I agree. That's why there's no need to believe in a God, since there was no need for a God to bring the cosmos into existence."

--Well then, would it be unreasonable to suggest that existence is God?

I guess if a person's concept of God is this thing other than manifestation that makes manifestation happen according to her whims and desires and fucks up beings that don't kiss her ass and follow her directions, you might have a point.

Sorry you think eminent physicists John Wheeler and Andrei Linde are crazy kooks.

"Stanford University physicist Andrei Linde believes this quantum paradox gets to the heart of Wheeler's idea about the nature of the universe: The principles of quantum mechanics dictate severe limits on the certainty of our knowledge. "

"The universe and the observer exist as a pair," Linde says. "You can say that the universe is there only when there is an observer who can say, Yes, I see the universe there. " ----from:

Because I have logically concluded that existence "always is," does not mean I am an atheist. In fact the natural state of existence, without filters, is unconditional love... which is the pretty standard universal definition of God everywhere except in usa probably.

Anything "quantum" is almost certain to get misrepresented. I'm sure some here are smart enough to delve deep into the meanings and implications of the theories(Manjit), but most of us are just average folks. I'm certainly not smart enough to understand these sciences, and even if I wanted to get the gist of them, the simplifications I would make of the terms would diminish their meanings and further misrepresent the findings outside of my own small self-explanations and analogies.

But one thing that is for sure is that there are a lot of funny and smart people online who have over the years written articles and made videos mocking the bad connections some try to make between quantum physics etc and spirituality. These videos do not go way when I close my eyes, and I certainly appreciate that at least this much continuity exists in the universe.

287daysleft, you need to do more reading about quantum physics. It is nonsense to believe that the moon, or anything else, ceases to exist when no one is looking at it. This Discover article has a good discussion of Wheeler and his views about observer-created reality.

Excerpt:
---------------------
Wheeler conjectures we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself — and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe.

Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of the participatory universe envisioned by Wheeler, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real. Ordinary matter and radiation play the dominant roles.

Wheeler likes to use the example of a high-energy particle released by a radioactive element like radium in Earth's crust. The particle, as with the photons in the two-slit experiment, exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real and solid until it interacts with something, say a piece of mica in Earth's crust.

When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the mica, not a conscious being, is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen. The trail of disrupted atoms left in the mica by the high-energy particle becomes part of the real world.

I think quanta=consciousness/awareness/existence/God. The foundational particles of the universe, quanta, are immaterial or too small to be physically measured although their existence may be demonstrated by a super collider or mathematical equation. Scientists may call quanta.. energy reduced to its smallest particle or the foundational components of matter.. To me this energy is awareness, existence, God. Can't find it but it's here.

I say this based on what I think quanta means. Since I have never studied physics, my concept of quanta may be incorrect. If someone wants to reprimand me or deconstruct what I just said, fine with me. But why bother with this inconsequential post?

What I mean to say is that, regardless of what quantum means, God is awareness/consciousness. I guess the argument is which came first, matter or awareness/consciousness. Scientists say matter created consciousness. I think consciousness and matter are the same thing.

Nothing novel or profound said here. I'm just sittin' here thinking God is obvious if you look in the right direction which is no direction at all and don't think about it. Just... stop.

"Most traditions say that mystic experiences confer various powers or siddhis. This is true of all mainstream hinduism and buddhism, and in some christian and islamic mystic traditions as well."

You are completely mistaken about that. In every tradition siddhas are concerned an aside that don't come to everyone and are an impediment when and if they really do.

"You seem to have an anger problem, which is weird for someone with so much self control that he can leave his body and meet god."

LOL...leave my body and meet God? Did I ever say anything about leaving my body? Or meeting God? You seem full of strange religious memes that have zero to do with what I have actually said. No I'm not angry about it, but I think you are clearly angry about something.

What I mean to say is that, regardless of what quantum means, God is awareness/consciousness. I guess the argument is which came first, matter or awareness/consciousness. Scientists say matter created consciousness. I think consciousness and matter are the same thing

Um, what's the matter with you? :)

Ishwar Puri's mystic explanation characterizes consciousness as
both awareness and creative force. God is then the "Totality of
Consciousness". Therefore nothing exists without consciousness.

You're on the right track, I think, at least mystically. Do you think
we'll ever get to the truth of the matter though?

I think Ishwar's explanation is the same, at least the way I understood his words.

" Do you think we'll ever get to the truth of the matter though?"

-- If we ever get "to" it then we've missed it. Truth/God is not an object. It can't be known because it is the knowing.

I may sound in that sentence that I think I am an authority. I'm not.

But to answer your your question simply.. Sure, we'll get there if getting there means understanding. Keep trying. It's a paradox. 'Trying' obscures it but you can't help but try which somehow sets you up for it.

There is a Zen story about Unk the dog. He wants Truth really bad and tries to climb the mountain to get to understanding. He gets exhuasted along the way and sits down to rest. At that moment it it dawns on him.

I've had a calculus course, most of which I've forgotten. I know quite a bit about quantum theory because the first book I wrote, "God's Whisper, Creation's Thunder," discusses this subject at some length.

I got a shorter and simpler edition of the book back in print this year. Buy it!

I've read numerous books about quantum theory, have attended talks on this subject, and am currently reading a book about the history and current state of quantum theory, "What is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics."

Below is the description of that book. I'm sharing it to show that there is a lot of disagreement about the meaning of quantum physics. There's no disagreement about the calculations, or math, which works perfectly. It is flat-out wrong for someone to say that "observation creates reality." This is only one way of looking at what is called the Measurement Problem.

There are many other ways, including the Many Worlds theory where observation does nothing, because every possible outcome of an observation, or measurement, occurs in an alternative world, of which there countless.

Anyway, here's the description of "What is Real?"
-----------------------
Every physicist agrees quantum mechanics is among humanity's finest scientific achievements. But ask what it means, and the result will be a brawl. For a century, most physicists have followed Niels Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation and dismissed questions about the reality underlying quantum physics as meaningless. A mishmash of solipsism and poor reasoning, Copenhagen endured, as Bohr's students vigorously protected his legacy, and the physics community favored practical experiments over philosophical arguments. As a result, questioning the status quo long meant professional ruin. And yet, from the 1920s to today, physicists like John Bell, David Bohm, and Hugh Everett persisted in seeking the true meaning of quantum mechanics. What Is Real? is the gripping story of this battle of ideas and the courageous scientists who dared to stand up for truth.

I don't know how much clearer quantum mechanics can be on this: "There is no observed without an observer." It can't happen. It doesn't happen. They arise together or not at all.

But let's just look at some non-quantum physicists, Albert Einstein for instance who said to Besso's widow: "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That signifies nothing. For those of us who believe in physics, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

This does not sound like atheism to me. Many eminent scientists are not atheists. Neither is Buddhism atheist.

Here is a quote from Buddha himself:
"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned." — Udana VIII.3

Let's see if Taoism is atheistic:
According to Taoism, life and death are complementary aspects and death is not to be feared. Death is considered to be a transformation. The soul is eternal. It may migrate to another life and continue to do so until the eternal soul achieves harmony with the Tao.

But of course all of that is unimportant. What is clear is that Awareness is all and everything. There can be no moment from which it is absent. It always is and always was. There is no other possibility. The atheist idea that it is possible to somehow get out of awareness when the body drops is not founded in reality.

Look, I'm sorry there is so much craziness among religionists. But just because there are rotten carrots doesn't mean discard all carrots.

Regarding this quantum mechanics thing, which is a topic different than atheism .....

I have a pen on my desk. I am not touching it or hearing it. I close my eyes and the pen disappears. Did the pen actually disappear? Strictly speaking, yes. You can say well I imagined it was still there and when I opened my eyes it was there again, so it was there all along. Wrong. When there was no witness of it, there is no way to say it was there. To be "there," means there was a witness, not just someone imagining. We must discern imagination from reality.

If a tree falls in an uninhabited forest did it make a sound? No, the definition of sound requires both sound vibrations and a hearer of them. Similarly the existence of a pen requires both an object and a subject. You have one without the other and you have no pen in reality, only in imagination.

That's why I asked previously, is this discussion limited to reality or is it going to be about imagination?

@ Spencer - if he is a thief - He can not preach saying that if you want to destroy someone : give them loads of money!

He needs to make a statement ASAP- a lot of us need closure.

We know we won’t see anything thing within as Gurinder said that we are not allowed to see anything as it only detracts us. Really? Or does he have no power to show us anything!!! It’s a nice ploy nevertheless.

This creation is like a huge Weather balloon, but which is really mostly empty space, inflated to its huge size and inflating still (even as tiny sections deflate) . Or a large image projected onto a wall from an infinitely small projector.

Proof of a "perfect creator" is not in the magical violation of the laws that run this creation.

It is the constancy of those laws within their scope of influence.

Because those laws weren't always there. They emerged as part of the emerging creation. At the precise moment something exists, in that moment so too all the laws to govern it. And as that field grows, new laws appear also, given at that larger field.

And those new forces built upon the structure of the smaller and greater forces in the tiny fields from which they emerge.

What a system!

The notion of intelligent design is a human notion. It's not smart at all. Human beings think than act. How clunky is that?

But to have all of that done, even to a perfect level of zero variation right from the instant, that is genius. A particle comes into existance, a new force ariives and all the laws that dress it are there.

So what is this God? Our human capacity to comprehend. Of course we anthropomorphosize! We're people. We put things in people terms.

But when we move beyond that, we become aware of ourselves as a speck of energy in a field of pure and beautiful energy. And we just want to merge in that completely and forget ourselves. That field is attracted to us, comes to us, takes a form we can understand. But we are happy to leave all those forms and become the entire!

@ Arjuna : Heard of the word " MAUJ " ......... ?????
It's the most fucked up word in the Sant Mat lexicon because it justifies anything and everything.
( Not meant offensively at you, just saying ............ )

@ Arjuna : It's a common cop out that is often used when something is unjustifiable. It ascribes itself to a greater meaning beyond human understanding. It's an escape from critical reasoning. It's used in many religious sects.
MAUJ, MARZI, HUKUM are one-word comfort zones. Spiritual aviators. Blinders for bats.

Let me share a peak within.
The very confidence and personal power Gurindar needed to adopt to carry out the work of the message of Spirit is a host of qualities that become baggage and left to their own do as much damage as good.

The very ego, pride and self assurance he was given to get this far, now that Karma has to be shed. So we all have to live through the natural destructive results of those qualities also. It must be worn away, peeled away before he leaves. It's all God's work, from that perspective.

Then you will see he is a soul just like you and I.that's a very good outcome!
No worse, no better. A reminder of the need for us to monitor ourselves and struggle for progress beyond ourselves and into spirit. No human being gets beyond human being. For that you must enter spirit

But a soul is always greater than the cult of personality required to function in this dark place.

So that should strengthen our commitment to find our own connection to the spirit within through our devotion to spirit, our meditation.

@ Spence : I'm not criticising and I'm talking beyond RSSB. When I say " I can't believe in a God who doesn't help his own " I'm referring to any God / Guru who isn't generous with the poor who believe in him. Well, my texts say that even the poorest of Saints shared whatever little they possessed. It's very simple. Sharing is the first principle. If I have a bottle of water, you wouldn't want me to keep you thirsty while I go off meditating. I find that most brands of Sant Mat either focus too much on the Guru, or on the self. I prefer relaxing into a little selflessness ... :)

Yes my mistake.
You wrote
"I'm referring to any God / Guru who isn't generous with the poor who believe in him. Well, my texts say that even the poorest of Saints shared whatever little they possessed."

Yes. Such souls are worth our respect.

The cult of personality is a huge issue. I agree. Selflessness. That's real Seva.

@ Spencer - still lost now totally lost. If Gurinder needs Gods help - how can he help me???

This is where the message gets weak!!! How can someone who has even remote access to the inner regions fall.

I wouldn’t and haven’t - and yet tell me tell you something I have been tempted all my life but the traumas in mylife have given me strength.

Question - if he ain’t God - the mediation he gave us is not better than listening to a kylie minigue record. The whole point is that he pulls up and we can not go within of our own accord !!! So once again how do we get within now without a guide and then meet the inner master who is the same image of the outer!!! It’s a contradiction of the highest order!!

Hi Arjuna
See the God in Gurindar.
See the God in Kylie.
Have faith in that Spirit in you. Let that love come through all doubts. It's right there inside.
And it will do all the work that can ever be done.

As I wrote earlier, Maharaji, Jagat, Sawan, Jaimal, Shiv, Arjun, Kabir, Rumi, Jesus, they're not sitting on their hands. They carry the responsibility for your progress and arrival. Let Gurindar get through this on the outside.

You have your own stuff to go through. Let any one of these Saints help you. It's wrong for anyone to say they can't. That's a lie. They are all love and carry no defense for a loving soul who needs their help. But it's all done within, Arjuna. That's where you must go.

Anyone in this world can help point the way, even a voice in cyberspace. So, follow the orders you were given with absolute obedience and laser focus. There are all the great Generals of all time shouting out to you to join them.

Just think of it as mental practice. Like jogging. First day, ugh, terrible, can't get half way down the block.
Six months later, two miles or more! No problem!

Just a discipline to look within, to gradually withdraw from worldly fears, concerns.
Pick some Saint you love. Give it to Him in meditation: Simran, DIan, Bhajan. Put worry aside, friend.

Understand that in the darkness is an overhwelming wave of love. Let it come to you. Be still.

Just that. Daily. Some days, great, others awful. But if you have a way to be in that joy, under your own control, even if the work requires pulling away from these other thoughts, it's a great return for your effort.

And then, patiently, other stuff comes. But you get the early proof right away in the above.

Again, it's a practice. Some days great, others crap. Keep at it.

One day you will see that nothing in this outer world compares. So the relative return on your invested time begins to skyrocket....

This is a strange thing. To traditional Christians, mankind is good, but sinful, and the creation is also considered a good thing.

Very generally speaking (we'd need master Manjit, the one of the book, for the authoritative answer) to the Indic mind, mankind is divinity under a mask, and the creation is an ugly place that needs to be escaped, or at least the low portion that we inhabit does.

Like a lot of things that change with age, my preference for religious heuristics has as well. I no longer find it optimal or even useful to consider myself better than a human as that saying goes, "We're spiritual beings having a human experience." The Indic view, to me, is nothing but an enticing fantasy and one that makes man more egotistical than humble.

Something like the Christian or Stoic perspective of accepting who and what we are makes far more sense to me than pretending I'm secretly a god looking for an escalator located in the center of my forehead, or that seeing and hearing random things proves the existence of other "higher" worlds.

What if you got to those worlds and learned they were all bait and switch scams anyway? It's all lights on the surface, and devils torturing you when you get in. Be careful what you wish for.

Hi Osho!
Yes the definition of a true Saint is that they cannot actually fall.

But as Maharaji taught, which you can read in Spiritual discourses, even the Saint must assume Karma to be in the physical body. They can't exist here without taking on some Karma.

And that Karma must be paid in this life. They don't leave here carrying anything.

We are in no position, actually, to identify a true Saint at our level.

You can have gurus who have great power and personal flaws. They may do great works and be of great spiritual help, Sadh Gurus. You can have individuals at the very top of the wheel of 84, slide right down to the bottom.

That is also Sant Mat teachings.

No Saint ever proclaims themself as a perfect Saint. It is the Satsangis who do this. And that's dangerous because their judgment is no better than yours or mine.

When Maharaji claimed he was a struggling soul just like the initiate he was speaking to, I would not discount his words.

When Baba Ji told an initiate to stop calling him Lord, that this was the height of presumption, I would honor that.

These labels of perfection people manipulate to avoid personal responsibility to make their own decisions about right and wrong, to assume some sense of perfection themselves, and that is a direct violation of Sant Mat teachings.

The friend who brought me to the path fourty years ago shared this story. When Maharaji visited America in the 1960's he walked past two older ladies with scarves over their heads bowing and calling him Lord. As he passed he said, "ladies, knock it off."

Hi Osho
Yes the true Saints are superhuman by definition. But they can do anything they choose. They choose to live as human beings and don't like to be treated as gods. Those are true saints.

So if they violate their own vows, are they a true Saint?

These are just terms we like to use intellectually. Actually they are meaningless. They aren't the teachings, just commentary around the teachers.

And the condition of the Saints is a little more complicated.

Maharaji speaks about himself on an audio file, Q & A volume 1, which is freely available at the RSSB site.

A Satsangi, in adoration, says she is so happy to be in his presence and unworthy.

He replies, "Sister, we are all struggling souls. If it were up to me I would be sitting there where you are in the audience. Don't put me up so high. I'm just like you."

I think we should honor this.

Why? Because we are in no condition to make that determination. And no Saint asks us to. Accepting they are perfect is not a condition for initiation, nor a vow. And if we use that to relinquish our own personal responsibilities then it is er who have fallen and are no longer acting in accordance with the Master's teachings.

Sawan Singh, Charan Singh and Gurindar Singh all teach this same: Regard the Saint as a friend there to help you. Whatever else you learn about them will come within in its own time.

And any good friend can be helpful to you, even if they are imperfect.

We should all help each other to be better human beings, and that includes forgiveness.

When asked if the Master carries karma (sin) Maharaji says, "No one can be here without karma."

They must carry sin to be here. It is of their own choice. And they must get rid of it before they go. But what form does that take? To say they carry no sin contradicts their own teachings. Within, the inner Master, who, as Maharaji teaches, is the Spirit, carries no sin. And when we are with him in Spirit, neither do we.

And finally, in that same book Maharaji says that at our level we can't possibly know who is a real Saint and who is not.

So when people claim perfection for the Master they are actually speaking only of their personal view. In some ways clinging to that is clinging to superstition. Master doesn't like that and advises against it.

"Sister, even if we say our master is God, we are just deceiving ourselves. We want intellectually to think that he is God, but unless we experience him within, we can never say he's God"

The trend by "spiritual" authors today is to appeal to some purported domain that falls outside of the bounds of reason. Steve Mcintish refers to this as "trans-rational" and Tim Freke refers to it as "paralogical thinking". These authors might have taken their cue from Ken Wilber.

This hypothetical domain of thought—in which there are aspects of life that are resistant or contrary to reason—is invoked as evidence that supernaturalism is or might be true. It goes something like this: there exists trans-rational domains, theism/supernaturalism is contrary to reason, therefore theism/supernaturalism exists (or might exist) by virtue of falling into the domain of the trans-rational.

The problem with this should be abundantly self-evident. Firstly, how one might distinguish between what is "trans-rational" and what is plainly irrational is never elucidated. It seems to be a matter of personal taste. One person's nonsense is another person's religion and vice versa. Obviously "trans-rationality" is just irrationality by another name, performing a particular religious function.

Secondly, the "trans-rational" domain—being transcendent of reason—is not subject to verification or proof, as these are the tools of reason. This reliance on un-falsifiability is the oldest trick in the religionist's book. The inability to disprove what doesn't exist isn't evidence in their favor. They either don't comprehend this or are disingenuous.

Interestingly, if you ask the proponents of this belief (and I have) if it is reasonable for someone to believe in a trans-rational domain of being, they will respond affirmatively. Thus, they are asserting that it is rational to contend that the "trans-rational" exists. It seems to me that they are either asserting a self-negation or unknowingly conceding that nothing can in fact supercede reason (I.e., unknowingly dismantling their own position).

bachan 9 makes it crystal clear and leaves no room for interpretation.

in the highest region (which by definition a saint has attained) there is no trace of desire

those who reach there CANNOT FALL.

i quote
"this is why great incarnations, rishis, munis came under the influence of maya."

up to the first and secod region, tthe devotee may fall.

when he reaches the highest region (sat lok) he attains the status of a saint (and cannot fall)

Maharaj Charan Singh never claimed to be a saint.

He only said he was given the job / seva to do and carried it out to the best of his ability.

Ajaib tells his first hand experience of going to Charan and asking for initiation.
Charan Singh tells him in no uncertain terms that he has made no spiritual progress and cannot
guide him on the inner regions. Ajaib thanked him for being honest and left.

by the way - I don't believe in this - I am just pointing out that the teachings are clear

"So when people claim perfection for the Master they are actually speaking only of their personal view. In some ways clinging to that is clinging to superstition. Master doesn't like that and advises against it.

"Sister, even if we say our master is God, we are just deceiving ourselves. We want intellectually to think that he is God, but unless we experience him within, we can never say he's God""

this is a whole different point being made by charan singh.

He is just saying that its blind faith till you reach there, he is not denying that status of a saint.

The friend who brought me to the path fourty years ago shared this story. When Maharaji visited America in the 1960's he walked past two older ladies with scarves over their heads bowing and calling him Lord. As he passed he said, "ladies, knock it off."

I don't believe that story at all, as that is not Charan's style.
I cannot imagine him saying "knock it off"